If you're interested in using a term that historians and political scientists have been wrestling with for over 60 years, you're going to have to do better than grabbing a brief web dictionary answer. Start out with Payne's A History of Fascism, 1915-1945. You're in college; it should be in your college library. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism provides a good history of fascism, too, even if one disagrees with some of his conclusions.

Quote:

What you guys are suggesting is that to use the term, you must hold it against every fascist government that existed, despite my making a distinction in the original post (notice that I didn't say fascism, I said American fascism).

In other words, in spite of the fact that you made up a term.

Quote:

Maybe it's just my warped, angry college kid viewpoint, but enforcing an unenforceable mandate against a plant material is very police-state like.

By that standard most western democracies are police states. See how misuse of terms diminishes their value?

Quote:

First off, it is unconstitutional. The war on drugs gives power to the federal government beyond the states[sic] control, and that is unconstitutional.

That makes little sense. Are you claiming that federalism is unconstitutional?

I would like to mention that marijuana gained its severe reputation as a result of propaganda disseminated by timber corporations in a bid to destroy the hemp industry. While the government certainly got in on the act in order to appease the increasing tide of anti-marijuana sentiment, criminalizing the plant had little to do with the government wishing to unilaterally control the lives of its citizens.

Fri May 20, 2011 4:35 pm

Jeff Wilder

Director

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pmPosts: 1462

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Quote:

I would like to mention that marijuana gained its severe reputation as a result of propaganda disseminated by timber corporations in a bid to destroy the hemp industry. While the government certainly got in on the act in order to appease the increasing tide of anti-marijuana sentiment, criminalizing the plant had little to do with the government wishing to unilaterally control the lives of its citizens.

That's right on. If decriminalization (a term that I prefer to use instead of legalization) was ever seriously considered, the opponents would not only be the social conservative puritans. But the part of the healthcare industry that makes a ton of money off drug treatment, the parts of law enforcement that handle drug enforcement. A lot of people would be out of jobs. In addition, the drug barons and kingpins themselves wouldn't want the stuff decriminalized because it would take the criminal element out of what they do and they'd make a lot less money that way.

_________________This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm basing this on what I see and have seen. For a variety of reasons, my job takes me around this stuff every day, and I've never met a kid who had no idea their parents are smoking/shooting up/taking pills etc etc. Parents kid themselves that they hide it, but it doesn't happen. Kid's are much, much smarter with stuff like this then they're given credit for.

Regardless of whether or not the child knows, the answer to your question is no, I do not think the parent was endangering the child by having weed in the house. Not any more than a parent who keeps prescription or over the counter drugs or beer/alcohol in the house, or allows their children to ride on a skateboard or bicycle, or in a vehicle. These are all socially acceptable risks, but the only one that will land you in legal trouble is with the weed, and that simply isn't fair.

Your attitude also suggests that you believe drug prohibition is actually an effective way of protecting children, when in actuality it puts them at far greater risk. It's easier for kids to get their hands on weed than it is alcohol. Why? Because drug dealers don't card. It also exposes them to a larger criminal world, and there are many a drug dealer who have no scruples between selling the practically harmless marijuana leaf or potentially deadly cocaine. The trade should be legalized (or decriminalized), controlled and regulated. Schools should teach moderation and responsible use instead of scare-tactic propaganda that breeds a desire to taste the forbidden fruit in children.

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

This is a fallacy. Drug addiction doesn't lead to criminality, drug prohibition leads to criminality. A crackhead doesn't break into your car to steal your radio when he's high, he does it when he needs money to buy crack.

I said that drug use doesn't happen in a vacuum. That's a fallacy?

No one's disagreeing that the illegalities of drugs lead to crimes and violence.

Here's a fallacy that you just said: Drug addiction doesn't lead to criminality. Are you fucking kidding me? If crack was legal the price may or may not skyrocket, but it would not be free -- addicts would still need money for crack. Some would still commit crimes to do so. Are you seriously going to contend that crack doesn't ever lead to violence? Sure, sometimes a crackhead breaks into your car to get money. What about when a crackhead kills his wife while he's high? That's the governments's fault too? How exactly would that change if the legality changed?

Now, you're right in that the illegality of drugs hugely amplifies the criminal aspect. But to say it's solely responsible for the criminal aspects is insane.

As someone whose worked with crack-addicts at the POTS homeless shelter in the Fordham area of the Bronx, I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about. The likelihood of "violent acts while high" is one of the most exaggerated aspects of drug propaganda. I'd contend that an alcoholic is infinitely more likely to attack someone while drunk than someone who is high on illicit drugs. As a dissociative drug, a crack user is more likely to experience a paranoid psychosis and harm themselves rather than someone else (especially with the scratching...delusional parasitosis is a scary thing.)

Shade wrote:

I'Maybe alcohol should be illegal too, then.

Because that worked out sooooooo well the first time... -_-

Shade wrote:

I'You can't overdose and die from marijuana use, true. But plenty of deaths are related to the drug.

Uh, yeah, no. What's your argument here? It causes cancer? No, it doesn't. In fact, it has anti-cancer properties that we've known about since the '70's. That it causes car accidents? While I don't condone driving under the influence of anything (if it were up to me, I'd make it fineable to drive on less than 4 hours of sleep), this argument is moot. Not only is there NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT MARIJUANA INCREASES TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS OR FATALITIES, Marijuana is detectable in the body for up to 6 months after you smoke it (depending on one's weight and water intake), because it is fat soluble. Therefore, 99.99% of cases that have marijuana as a primary cause of the accident are dismissed, because there isn't a way to know when the weed was smoked. This makes it unlike most other illicit drugs. You could do a huge bump of cocaine in the morning and pass a blood test in the afternoon. I really do detest it when people say that driving high is tantamount to driving while drunk, because it really isn't even a close comparison. What's next, eh? Gonna tell me how weed made poor little Johnny try heroin? Hmmph, so much for deaths related to it...

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Arresting people for their personal choice to smoke a planty material is unconstitutional in my eyes, but I guess that's up to the interpretation of the reader.

Maybe you're the rare exception who exists totally outside of the drug trade. But the vast majority of user are affiliated with the trade in some way, and thereby support the violence created by it. To most users, apparently, their freedom to toke is more important than anyone else's safety. If drug users actually cared about the curbing the violence, they would stop using and campaign like hell to get the laws changed. But too many prefer to just get high and wax poetic about how fucked-up the government is.

This is amongst the most asinine arguments I've ever heard in the great drug war debate, and I argue about this stuff with people nearly everyday. It is the responsibility of the government to change the laws in accordance to the trends of the people, not the other way around. You don't even take into consideration the massive taboo that is placed on drugs; it's practically impossible to have a real conversation on it. Many people who support legalization (and are closet smokers themselves) don't want to show outright support for something that has such a stigma on it. Also, the LAWS are the reason the trade was forced into the black market, not the consumers. I mean, seriously, use some common sense. If all the consumers stopped demanding the product, the war on drugs would be declared a success and that would make it immensely more difficult to push law reform...

firefly wrote:

First off, it is unconstitutional. The war on drugs gives power to the federal government beyond the states[sic] control, and that is unconstitutional.

That makes little sense. Are you claiming that federalism is unconstitutional?[/quote]

I'm not claiming federalism is unconstitutional. I'm claiming that DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities are unconstitutional. Federal prosecution of drug users is unconstitutional. The state's should have the right (and they do, under the constitution) to regulate and control their drug policies in whatever manner they choose.

Ken wrote:

I would like to mention that marijuana gained its severe reputation as a result of propaganda disseminated by timber corporations in a bid to destroy the hemp industry. While the government certainly got in on the act in order to appease the increasing tide of anti-marijuana sentiment, criminalizing the plant had little to do with the government wishing to unilaterally control the lives of its citizens.

Anslinger, Heart, and DuPont made quite the 1-2-3 combination. A perfect storm of propagandizing and consolidation of power. But I'd argue against your stance that criminalizing the plant didn't have anything to do with the government wishing to control people's lives. One need look only so far as the 1914 El Paso ordinance, which was largely a move to be able to beat up on and lock away Mexicans. Moreover, if you look at the transcripts from Anslinger's testimonies on why weed should be illegal, you'll find many things that suggest that he was interested in controlling people's lives, namely black people. It's a disgusting read, really naseuating stuff. Hard to imagine that words like "nigger Jazz musicians smoke the killer weed and channel Satan with their music" were actually uttered and taken seriously in a fucking court room. The controlling of people's lives may not have been intentional, but if it wasn't, then it's certainly an unintended consequence. For a more modern perspective, consider the disparity between minority arrests and white arrests for marijuana in NYC, despite marijuana use being more prevalent amongst whites (though to the city's credit, they just adjusted the law to try and sway this trend). Consider the fact that a college student may lose a scholarship for a victimless offense.

Back in the day, the big competition was the timber industry. Now we have to deal with Big Pharma and Big Oil. The real reason weed is illegal is because of special interests, not because it's a threat to our society.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:54 am

Shade

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about. The likelihood of "violent acts while high" is one of the most exaggerated aspects of drug propaganda

Please. I said nothing about being high leading to violent acts. I said that some people commit violent acts while high (indisputable) and that legalization would do nothing to curb crimes committed to fund a drug habit (also indisputable). I didn't say a thing about "violent acts while high" being a reason they should remain illegal.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

I'd contend that an alcoholic is infinitely more likely to attack someone while drunk than someone who is high on illicit drugs. As a dissociative drug, a crack user is more likely to experience a paranoid psychosis and harm themselves rather than someone else (especially with the scratching...delusional parasitosis is a scary thing.)

I never said anything to disagree with this. You said that drugs don't lead to criminality. I was pointing out the flaw in that stance, not comparing anything to alcohol.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

It is the responsibility of the government to change the laws in accordance to the trends of the people, not the other way around.

That makes sense. In cities where meth has taken over, it should be made legal. In Detroit and Chicago, murder should be made legal. Gotta follow the trends.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Many people who support legalization (and are closet smokers themselves) don't want to show outright support for something that has such a stigma on it.

I have no use for those people. If they're not willing to stand up for what they believe in, they don't really believe in it.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Also, the LAWS are the reason the trade was forced into the black market, not the consumers.

Well said. Also, the sky is blue. No one is disagreeing with this, but that doesn't change what reality is now. You can't support the drug industry and not support the violence. It's not your fault that the situation is what it is, but the situation is also inescapable.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

I mean, seriously, use some common sense. If all the consumers stopped demanding the product, the war on drugs would be declared a success and that would make it immensely more difficult to push law reform...

That's it...the reason people won't stop smoking weed is because they want to prove to the government there's demand for it.

Please. People do it because they want to. Nothing wrong with it if it happens in a vacuum, but most of the time it doesn't. I'll repeat what I said: if users really cared about curbing violence more than getting high, they'd stop using. But most don't feel that way.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:34 am

firefly

Director

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pmPosts: 1262

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Quote:

I'm not claiming federalism is unconstitutional. I'm claiming that DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities are unconstitutional. Federal prosecution of drug users is unconstitutional. The state's should have the right (and they do, under the constitution) to regulate and control their drug policies in whatever manner they choose.

Please. I said nothing about being high leading to violent acts. I said that some people commit violent acts while high (indisputable) and that legalization would do nothing to curb crimes committed to fund a drug habit (also indisputable). I didn't say a thing about "violent acts while high" being a reason they should remain illegal.

Your two indisputable "facts" are extremely disputable. If you don't think legalization would curb the violence surrounding the drug war, you are severely missing something.

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

I'd contend that an alcoholic is infinitely more likely to attack someone while drunk than someone who is high on illicit drugs. As a dissociative drug, a crack user is more likely to experience a paranoid psychosis and harm themselves rather than someone else (especially with the scratching...delusional parasitosis is a scary thing.)

I never said anything to disagree with this. You said that drugs don't lead to criminality. I was pointing out the flaw in that stance, not comparing anything to alcohol.

The point I was trying to make is that drug addicts don't commit the crimes while they're high, they commit them when they need the money to buy drugs.

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

It is the responsibility of the government to change the laws in accordance to the trends of the people, not the other way around.

That makes sense. In cities where meth has taken over, it should be made legal. In Detroit and Chicago, murder should be made legal. Gotta follow the trends.

Don't be a tool. Firstly, your grouping in smoking weed with smoking meth and killing people. That's simply retarded. Secondly, do you disagree that the government should adjust it's policies based on the actions of its people? So I suppose the change in cultural attitudes during the 60's had nothing to do with the Civil rights movement and the reform that followed? Prohibition (of alcohol) wasn't abandoned because of the negative repercussions and backlash from the public? Lastly, in cities where meth is taking over and murder is high, obviously there needs to be some adjustment in the law to do something about it. I didn't say legalization was the only option. I wouldn't implement a legalization of meth, but rather a free program similar to the ones in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands (all countries, mind you, that have a fraction of the amount of hard drug users per capita that we do in this country). Drug addiction should be a public health issue, not a criminal one.

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Many people who support legalization (and are closet smokers themselves) don't want to show outright support for something that has such a stigma on it.

I have no use for those people. If they're not willing to stand up for what they believe in, they don't really believe in it.

Obviously you don't know what it's like to be a leper. In no other argument in the galaxy are constituents more readily dismissed than people who support marijuana decrim/legalization. Not to mention the fact that most politicians are scared shitless to even mention drugs, because it's tantamount to political suicide. I'm not excusing them for not standing up for themselves (because if they did, reform would happen tomorrow), but you have to take into account all the repercussions that follow. Many are content to be a closet smoker, and until we are able to have an actual, serious conversation about the war on drugs, it's going to remain that way.

Shade wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

I mean, seriously, use some common sense. If all the consumers stopped demanding the product, the war on drugs would be declared a success and that would make it immensely more difficult to push law reform...

That's it...the reason people won't stop smoking weed is because they want to prove to the government there's demand for it.

Please. People do it because they want to. Nothing wrong with it if it happens in a vacuum, but most of the time it doesn't. I'll repeat what I said: if users really cared about curbing violence more than getting high, they'd stop using. But most don't feel that way.

I'm not saying people don't smoke weed because they want too. But your saying that because they smoke weed, they're in the wrong because the trade is in the black market. That's not fair. People who consume alcohol don't have to worry about this. Your blaming the consumer for something that is outside of their control. Also, there's a LOT more weed smoking going on than is admitted, so I'd argue that most of the time, it DOES happen in a vacuum, because nobody wants to get arrested for a victimless crime. Thusly, they stay hidden. I've never heard of a group of brazen stoners walking into a park filled with children in broad daylight, walking around blowing smoke in the poor defenseless children's faces.

If the government really cared about curbing the violence, they'd decriminalize/legalize.

firefly wrote:

Quote:

I'm not claiming federalism is unconstitutional. I'm claiming that DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities are unconstitutional. Federal prosecution of drug users is unconstitutional. The state's should have the right (and they do, under the constitution) to regulate and control their drug policies in whatever manner they choose.

See: Interstate commerce clause.

Obviously I don't have the extensive knowledge of these political documents that you have, but I'm mostly going on Ron Paul's stance. He's stated that the war on drugs is unconstitutional.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:33 pm

Timmy Shoes

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Also, regardless of whether or not it happens in a vacuum, or whether or not it's criminalized, drug use it going to happen. It's clear to anybody who looks at the facts that the criminality hasn't done ANYTHING to curb the rates of use (in fact, it one looks at the numbers, you'd discover that rates have dramatically increased since prohibition was implemented), and has only created more violence. Hence why it should be treated as a public health issue, and not a criminal one. Good parenting and OBJECTIVE education are the keys to swaying rates of use, not arresting people.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:46 pm

firefly

Director

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pmPosts: 1262

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Also, regardless of whether or not it happens in a vacuum, or whether or not it's criminalized, drug use it going to happen. It's clear to anybody who looks at the facts that the criminality hasn't done ANYTHING to curb the rates of use (in fact, it one looks at the numbers, you'd discover that rates have dramatically increased since prohibition was implemented), and has only created more violence. Hence why it should be treated as a public health issue, and not a criminal one. Good parenting and OBJECTIVE education are the keys to swaying rates of use, not arresting people.

The case for moving toward decriminalization (which I agree with) is separate from the matter of whether or not the war on drugs is Constitutional. And I've not been particularly impressed with any argument that it violates the Constitution. I don't oppose the war on drugs because I think it's unconstitutional, I oppose it because I think that there's overwhelming evidence that it is an inherent failure and that we'd be better off without it.

Also, regardless of whether or not it happens in a vacuum, or whether or not it's criminalized, drug use it going to happen. It's clear to anybody who looks at the facts that the criminality hasn't done ANYTHING to curb the rates of use (in fact, it one looks at the numbers, you'd discover that rates have dramatically increased since prohibition was implemented), and has only created more violence. Hence why it should be treated as a public health issue, and not a criminal one. Good parenting and OBJECTIVE education are the keys to swaying rates of use, not arresting people.

The case for moving toward decriminalization (which I agree with) is separate from the matter of whether or not the war on drugs is Constitutional. And I've not been particularly impressed with any argument that it violates the Constitution. I don't oppose the war on drugs because I think it's unconstitutional, I oppose it because I think that there's overwhelming evidence that it is an inherent failure and that we'd be better off without it.

Fair enough. I still think it's unconstitutional (especially with regard to personal liberty), but that's not the main reason I oppose the war on drugs. It's really just a talking point to get people to view the issue from a different perspective. So we can agree that, regardless of the constitutionality of it, the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure.

The problem is, when it comes to drugs, things like rationality and sound science are often abandoned. Thankfully attitudes are changing for the better, but we're still a long ways away from where we need to be.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:34 pm

Vexer

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

I agree that the war on drugs is waste of time, money, and resources, but honestly, this isn't an issue I feel very strongly about one way or the other. I don't use drugs or have friends who do(though my sister did for a few years, after several close calls, she decided it wasn't worth risking getting arrested and quit) so it makes little difference to me whether or not weed is legalized or anything like that, I personally don't see the appeal in smoking weed at all, but I won't raise any objections if it's legalized.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:40 pm

Timmy Shoes

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Vexer wrote:

I agree that the war on drugs is waste of time, money, and resources, but honestly, this isn't an issue I feel very strongly about one way or the other. I don't use drugs or have friends who do(though my sister did for a few years, after several close calls, she decided it wasn't worth risking getting arrested and quit) so it makes little difference to me whether or not weed is legalized or anything like that, I personally don't see the appeal in smoking weed at all, but I won't raise any objections if it's legalized.

Say, in a hypothetical situation, there was to be a mandatory vote (I'm making it mandatory, since this is imaginary and I think you've stated you don't vote) over legalization (or decriminalization) vs. criminalization. Which way would you vote?

It's good to see people who don't smoke it saying they won't raise objections to whether or not it's legalized, but it's an issue that affects everybody, whether you're a user or not. I know it's not a hot button issue for you, but you should know that the war on drugs does have negative repercussions on your life, whether realized or not. Not to say you didn't already know that, because you probably did, but I don't think people realize how far reaching the effects of the war on drugs are. It branches out into other hot button issues, most notably the economy. How many billions in tax revenue are we losing to the black market? How many billions are taken away from education and social programs to fund the drug war?

For decriminalization to be seriously considered, I think there will need to be a much greater showing of support from the non-user community. Yes, drug abuse (not drug USE, there's a distinct difference) can cause problems, but our current system only creates more problems for everybody, involved or not.

Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:59 pm

firefly

Director

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pmPosts: 1262

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

Timmy Shoes wrote:

firefly wrote:

Timmy Shoes wrote:

Also, regardless of whether or not it happens in a vacuum, or whether or not it's criminalized, drug use it going to happen. It's clear to anybody who looks at the facts that the criminality hasn't done ANYTHING to curb the rates of use (in fact, it one looks at the numbers, you'd discover that rates have dramatically increased since prohibition was implemented), and has only created more violence. Hence why it should be treated as a public health issue, and not a criminal one. Good parenting and OBJECTIVE education are the keys to swaying rates of use, not arresting people.

The case for moving toward decriminalization (which I agree with) is separate from the matter of whether or not the war on drugs is Constitutional. And I've not been particularly impressed with any argument that it violates the Constitution. I don't oppose the war on drugs because I think it's unconstitutional, I oppose it because I think that there's overwhelming evidence that it is an inherent failure and that we'd be better off without it.

Fair enough. I still think it's unconstitutional (especially with regard to personal liberty), but that's not the main reason I oppose the war on drugs. It's really just a talking point to get people to view the issue from a different perspective. So we can agree that, regardless of the constitutionality of it, the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure.

The problem is, when it comes to drugs, things like rationality and sound science are often abandoned. Thankfully attitudes are changing for the better, but we're still a long ways away from where we need to be.

That I am inclined to support decriminalization makes me more anxious to separate the good arguments from the bad. If you think it's unconstitutional, you need to do better than "Ron Paul says so," because otherwise you will lose any debate. Concentrate on that which you can supply evidence for. The experiences of Portugal, as well as the economics research (see: http://mises.org/daily/2269) show that concerns over negative externalities are misplaced.

I know I'm being lazy, but I thought this guy made a pretty good argument.

Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:28 pm

Ken

Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.

I am not a user, and I support decriminalization.

The idea of null hypothesis is that a claim is false unless proven to be true. I believe that the foundation of our ideas of legality fundamentally stem from this concept. Ideally, we don't punish people unless we have a damn good reason. We don't limit indiidual freedoms unless we have a damn good reason. We don't outlaw things without a damn good reason.

If we examine the criminalization of marijuana in the first place, we will find that the reasons were not damn good. In fact, they were pretty terrible.

Of course, as with most religious debates, those who argue in favor are essentially responding to emotional arguments rather than rational ones. Therefore, my argument won't do much for them.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum